In a message dated 12/15/2004 12:07:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


John Smithson wrote:
>I attend regular, normal churches  --  Baptists,
>EV Free, Four Square, Assembly of God  --
>that sort of thing.   Absolutely no one I know
>believes that the Spirit's presense in our lives
>supercedes the need for exegetical and
>contextual studies.

Are you sure that you have discussed this with everyone in these Christian
sects?


"I believe I said "No one I know   .................."   I do not see the question above as being pertinent to the discussion.   Agreed?




Bring up 1 John 2:27 to those in the Foursquare and Assembly of God
churches, and you might find some who would believe that while exegetical
and contextual studies are helpful, they are superceded by the Spirit's
presence in our lives.  The foundation of the Foursquare church was through
the revelatory experiences of a professed atheist woman named Aimee Semple
McPherson.  She was not converted through studies, but through revelation
and a supernatural conversion experience.  Her legacy included Bible
colleges and radio broadcasts, but the thrust of the revival she spawned
certainly emphasized the anointing of the Spirit rather than exegetical and
contextual studies.  I was a Foursquare church member for a year when I
lived in California, and I believe that the Spirit's presence is much more
important than any intellectual studies.


Thanks for the history on Four Square.  It makes for good review.   I believe I said ".................. the Spirit's presense in our lives supersedes the need for exegetical and  contextual studies."   I did not speak to the importance or the comparative importance of the Spirit's presense.  




1 John 2:27
(27) But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye
need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of
all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye
shall abide in him.


This makes no claim as to how this anointing works and, consequently, cannot possibly be used to establish the opinion that our understanding of the written word is revelatory in nature and, hence, infallible...........imo  

Reply via email to